Punjab and others', filed by similarly situated employee challenging rejection of his claim for pension by BBMB on t h e ground that he did not have the prescribed numbe r of qualifying years as the service rendered by hi m in the work charge capacity with the Beas Satluj Link project was not being counted, was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.12.2014. Identical pleas as have been raised in present bunch of cases were raised on behalf of BBMB in Sohan Sin g h's case (supra). The Division Bench while taking not e of the history of the Bhakra Dam project besides considering Section 80 of the Reorganization Act, 19 6 6 Act, as well as instructions dated 04.07.1981 issued by the BBMB concluded that: "Thus, it is clear that Bhakra Dam project which was earlier under the Gover n ment of Punjab and the Beas Construction Board w hich was earlier under the Central Government, o n the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punja b , through the provisions of the 1966 Act merged int o the respondent-board. This change was necessitate d on the formation of successor States cut out from t h e erstwhile State of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pra d esh etc. as the above project was catering to all of t h em. Thus, both the projects in which the petitioner ser v ed ultimately got merged into the respondent-Board. The above facts have been completely ignored by the respondent-Board while considering the case of the petitioner for counting the service rendered by hi m earlier in the Bhakra Dam Project and then later under the Beas Construction Board under the Centr a l Government before joining the respondent-Board." 15. Reliance by BB M B on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in t h e case of Jaswant Singh's case (supra) was also found to be misplaced. Argument in this regard as raised by t he respondent - Board and the finding thereon read as u nder:"Learned counsel for th e respondent-Board has argued that instructions dated 4.7.1991 would not apply to the case in hand as the s a me would apply only to ExCentral Government E mployees joining the Beas Construction Board. H e further stated that once the petitioner had accepted t he retrenchment compensation from the Beas Construc t ion Board, he was not entitled to have his service in the Beas Construction Board counted towards quali fy ing service for the grant of
